If there are any doubts about the truth and accuracy
of the allegation that the Cheney-Bush regime did 9/11, Dr. David Ray Griffin
dispels each and every one of them in his latest book on the subject, Debunking
9/11 Debunking. He again emphasizes the stand-down order angrily reiterated
by Cheney as overheard and observed by Transportation Secretary Norman
Mineta, and to which the latter offered testimony to that fact during the
9/11 Commission hearings. The 9/11 Commission Report falsified the time
of Cheney's presence in the bunker-command center, changing the time as
occurring after 10:00 a.m. when in fact Cheney was reported by several
as being in the bunker earlier at 9:25 a.m.

Griffin's book also brings General Richard Meyers and
Donald Rumsfeld into the deadly cabal that day proving their direct involvement
via the emergency teleconference they'd like to pretend they weren't part
of, also at a much earlier time than the regime would have US believe.
Griffin discusses how "journalist" Michael Bronner, when writing
a propaganda piece for Vanity Fair, cleverly time-confused these events
by relying upon NORAD tapes selectively given to him for his review by
the Cheney-Bush perfumed princes of the military. Griffin makes an excellent
case debunking the tapes by pointing out how long Cheney-Bush had them
thereby facilitating their tampering, and goes on to prove how the timelines
on those tapes conflict with the testimony given by the military during
the 9/11 Commission hearings.

Even according to these tapes, Cheney wasn't in the bunker
until sometime after 10:00 a.m. on the morning of 9/11. But as mentioned,
actual eyewitnesses debunk both the 9/11 Commission Report AND the NORAD
tapes. Griffin basically asks: Were the tapes wrong, or was the testimony
wrong? Actually, the obvious answer is that either members of the military
were lying at the time of their testimony, or the tapes were doctored or
selectively edited, or both. Griffin proves that both the Bronner-Vanity
Fair NORAD tapes and the 9/11 Commission Report conflict materially with
the facts.

Cheney-Bush did 9/11 all right, and they probably have
already finished plans for the next domestic terrorist event. But where's
the proof you might be prompted to ask. The proof is in their very behavior,
which increasingly, and on a daily basis, demonstrates their hatred and
contempt for America, its people, and its Constitution. They are becoming
braver and more arrogant by the day. They know Congress will not act,
and part of the reason is probably that Congress knows already that another
9/11 has been planned and is on the way, and that if they attack Cheney-Bush,
it is they, Congress, who will be blamed for having invited the attack
by evidencing weakness on the Global War on Terror. GWOT is merely a synonym
for the aggressive movement towards a global New World Order. And Cheney-Bush
have AIPAC on their side and also ready to strike Congress if need be!

The most obvious anomaly of the Cheney-Bush criminal
regime is the reverse order of its hierarchy: Cheney is America's real
dictator, and Bush his chimpanzee-monkey boy protégé and
the regime's White House Moron heat sink. Complaints of Cheney's meddling
in military and foreign policy arrangements between Britain and the United
States give credence to Cheney's dominating role. And a video of a Bush
photo-video op with the press included a scene showing Cheney, likened
to a stalking monster about to pounce if needed, and watching Bush from
the rear of the room and behind the cameras. He hovered as if he knew
Bush needed watching. And the present Cheney flap with the National Archives
over the safeguarding of classified national security documentation led
Cheney to assert that NO ONE has "oversight" over his activities.
Then, following Cheney's absurd assertion, the chimpanzee-monkey boy chimed
in: "Me too!" Neither is answerable to the "goddamned
piece of paper," the people of America, or the spineless cowards in
Congress.

As has been so often articulated in this space, 9/11
is the very source of this criminal administration's power; debunk their
officially-stated conspiracy theory, as Dr. Griffin has done repeatedly,
and both their source of unlimited power and their credibility will be
forever destroyed. As reported by Steve Watson on Prisonplanet.com in
an article posted June 25th entitled "Cheney and Bush Declare Autonomous
Dictatorial Powers ­ Exempt themselves from executive branch,"
Watson writes: "The Vice President and the President have casually
declared their offices to be independent of the executive branch and completely
autonomous, with Dick Cheney also attempting to abolish agencies his office
is supposed to be accountable to." Said another way, Cheney-Bush
have abolished the executive branch and replaced it with the Office of
Dictator.

Watson references events relative to the House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform and quotes from the Committee's report:
"Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order
that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified
national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office
is not an 'entity within the executive branch.' As described in a letter
from Chairman Waxman to the Vice President, the National Archives protested
the Vice President's position in letters written in June 2006 and August
2006. When these letters were ignored, the National Archives wrote to
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2007 to seek a resolution
of the impasse. The Vice President's staff responded by seeking to abolish
the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the
President's executive order. In his letter to the Vice President, Chairman
Waxman writes: 'I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions.
... [I]t would appear particularly irresponsible to give an office with
your history of security breaches an exemption from the safeguards that
apply to all other executive branch officials.'"

What is wrong with Congress? Isn't it clear that Cheney
runs the country? Where in the Constitution does Cheney get this authority?
Certainly he is correct in asserting his only functional responsibility
is that of President of the Senate. And he can function in an executive
role only when needed to break a tie, which can happen given the possibility
of an impasse resultant of an even divide considering two senators per
state. But as Cheney claims this constitutional void as a defense for
his being immune from the executive branch, he enjoys ruling over this
nation based on precisely this very same constitutional void. In other
words, there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS for his being the undesignated
yet actual ruler of police state America! And it is precisely this lack
of constitutional sanction that defeats Congressman Dennis Kucinich's motion
for Cheney's impeachment.

Lack of constitutionally defined duties, however, is
NO LONGER a viable argument for Cheney. He just abdicated executive branch
accountability, while proving true, at the same time, the Alexander Haig
assertion: HE IS INDEED IN CHARGE! And don't bother telling me that all
of Washington DC doesn't know this! Watson continues citing excerpts from
the mass media proving that even they are now beginning to see the dangers
of the Cheney-Bush police state. Watson cites articles from not only the
Washington Post, but also from the LA Times and theBoston Globe.

And NBC News chimed in as well, and their perspective
was also carried by Prisonplanet .com quoting from a piece: "NBC News:
Has the vice president gone too far?" The article by David Edwards
and Muriel Kane, also posted June 25th, offers: "NBC called Cheney
'a master of stealth, even inside the White House,' describing how he put
through HIS policy of holding detainees indefinitely without charges by
handing his proposal to the president without the formal staff review.
[Emphasis added.] NBC also noted that 'Cheney's influence turns out to
be surprisingly wide-ranging,' encompassing everything from cutting the
capital gains tax to ending the ban on snowmobiles in national parks."

We finally have nationally recognized news sources reporting
that Cheney is 1) in charge of both domestic and foreign policy [national
security information] and 2) is initiating as well domestic policy TOTALLY
OUTSIDE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY! How did this come to be? Who
cares?! It proves that Cheney is acting in not only an executive role
from the White House, but doing so illegally and with the full cooperation
of Bush and the Democratic Congress. Cheney, as chief executive, and Bush
as deputy, are violations of all constitutional laws separating and specifically
defining American governmental powers.

Impeaching at least one of these two co-conspirators
was at one time necessary to defeat the neoconservative lunatic plan to
launch World War III by nuking Iran to create the chaos needed for the
global New World Order government. Now, impeaching them both is IMMEDIATELY
necessary to prevent another 9/11! Considering Cheney-Bush insults directed
at Congress framed in a you-can't-touch-us attitude, we are giving dangerous
signals to this deadly criminal regime which they now obviously view as
a green light for yet another 9/11 terrorist act.

As Watson observes later on in his commentary, "Last
month it was also reported that a high-level group of government and military
officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program named
'The Day After,' which would effectively end civil liberties and implement
a system of martial law in the event of a catastrophic attack on a U.S.
city." Considering the Cheney-Bush track record and the revelations
concerning 9/11 documented by Dr. Griffin, is it really all that hard to
imagine the limitless power these criminals can benefit from by initiating
yet another 9/11?

Regarding the first 9/11 inside job, Griffin offers motives
and methods in his Debunking book more succinctly than I have found elsewhere.
Taking the posture of a defense attorney rebutting the one-sided, single-minded
prosecutorial objective of the 9/11 Commission in diverting fact and reality
away from the obvious guilt of Cheney-Bush, Griffin argues the case for
the non-existent "Islamofascist" phantoms:

The 9/11 Commission was thereby able, in
its prosecutorial role, to portray bin Laden and his Muslim followers as
having a plausible motive: they had declared war on America becauseAmerica,
in their eyes, had declared war on Allah and Islam. However, what if there
had been attorneys for the defense, who would have argued that the Bush-Cheney
administration, besides having had far more means and opportunity to carry
out the attacks than did al-Qaeda, also had a more powerful motive? Would
there have been any evidence to which they might have pointed? Yes, indeed.

They could have pointed out that a movement
known as neoconservatism, which included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,
Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz, had expressed interest in establishing
a global Pax Americana, the first all-inclusive empire in history; that
in 1992, Cheney, before ending his tenure as secretary of defense, had
Wolfowitz write a draft of the Defense Planning Guidance, which has been
called "a blueprint for permanent American global hegemony" and
Cheney's "Planto rule the world"; that the main points in this
document were reaffirmed in a 2000 document entitled "Rebuilding America's
Defenses," written by a neoconservative think tank called Project
for the New American Century (PNAC); that the stated requirements for the
Pax Americana included a huge increase in military spending, a technological
transformation of the military to reorient it around computer-guided weapons
(including weapons in space), and a revised doctrine of preemptive war
that would allow America to attack other nations even if they posed no
imminent threat. The defense attorneys for al-Qaeda could also have pointed
out that many of the leading neocons, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz,
had been wanting to take over Iraq and its oil since the early 1990s and
that the Bush-Cheney administration had in July 2001 reportedly indicated
that it would attack Afghanistan "by the middle of October."

Perhaps most important, these attorneys could
have pointed out, Zbigniew Brzezinski had suggested in 1997 that the American
public would support "imperial mobilization," through which America
could retain its primacy by taking control of the oil-rich region of Central
Asia (which includes Afghanistan), only in the event of "a truly massive
and widely perceived direct external threat" ­ just as the American
public had been willing to support "America's engagement in World
War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor." These defense attorneys could then have pointed out
that "Rebuilding America's Defenses," perhaps inspired by Brzezinski's
argument, suggested that the process of transforming the USmilitary in
the desired direction was "likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic
and catalyzing event ­ like a new Pearl Harbor." They could have
further pointed out that, besides the fact that 9/11 was widely compared
to Pearl Harbor, it was also said to have presented "opportunities"
by Bush, Rice, and Rumsfeld, with the latter saying that 9/11 created "the
kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world."
[The above excerpt is from Dr. David Ray Griffin's latest book, Debunking
9/11 Debunking, pages 104 ­ 105.]

Only a total madman or a Zionist fanatic faithfully following
"The Protocols" would see the horror of war as an "opportunity
to refashion the world."

In his paper posted on Global Research on June 24th entitled,
"Bush Directive for a 'Catastrophic Emergency' in America: Building
a Justification for Waging War on Iran?" also carried onRense.com,
Professor Michel Chossudovsky opens by quoting a statement made by a Pentagon
official supposedly leaked to the Washington Post on April 23, 2006: "'Another
[9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an OPPORTUNITY
that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets.'" [Emphasis
added.]

Chossudovsky goes on: "The US media consensus is
that 'the United States faces its greatest threat of a terrorist assault
since the September 11 attacks.'" That the mass media leans heavily
pro-Israel is an established fact. Iran, in spite of it having neither
threatening nor deployable nuclear capability, is being propagandized as
such by the mass media. Chossudovsky observes, "The sheer absurdity
that Al Qaeda might have advanced capabilities to wage a nuclear attack
on America is, nonetheless, pervasive in the US [pro-Israel] media reports.
[Emphasis mine.]

Comparing the mass media agitprop raising the specters
of both a nuclear armed Iran and al-Qaeda, the pro-Israel media was silent
on the warnings offered by former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks.
Franks' predictions are cited again by Chossudovsky wherein he predicted
the downfall of our democracy mildly referring to the activities of the
criminal Cheney-Bush regime. Chossudovsky quotes Franks: "'[A] terrorist,
massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western
world ­ it may be in the United States of America ­ that causes
our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize
our own country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing
event.' Franks was obliquely alludingto a 'Second 9/11' terrorist attack,
which could be used to galvanize US public opinion in support of a military
government and police state."

Chossudovsky continues ominously: "It is important
to understand that General Franks was not giving a personal opinion on
the role of a 'massive casualty-producing event' in National Security doctrine.
His statement very much reflects the dominant viewpoint both in the Pentagon
and the Department of Homeland Security both on the concept of [a] massive
casualty-producing event as well as how events might unfold in the case
of a 'Catastrophic Emergency.' The statement comes from a man who has
been actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest
levels. In other words, the 'militarization of our country' is an ongoing
operational assumption. It is part of the broader 'Washington consensus'.
It identifies the Bush administration's 'roadmap' of war and Homeland
defense."

The paper highlights Bush's May 2007 National Security
Presidential Directive, NSPD-51. It is a directive, a presidential executive
order, which establishes procedures for the continuity of government in
the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency." It legitimizes the Cheney-Bush
dictatorship. Chossudovsky observes, "NSPD 51 has barely been reported
by the [pro-Israel] mainstream media. [Emphasis again mine.] There was
no press briefing by the White House or by DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff,
which would be the normal practice, given the significance and implications
of NSPD 51. The text of NSPD 51/HSPD 20, announced by the White House
is not even mentioned on the DHS's website.

Chossudovsky then sends the Paul Revere alert: "While
NSPD 51 has the appearances of a domestic national security decision, it
is nonetheless, an integral part of US foreign policy. It belongs to a
longstanding military national security agenda. Were NSPD 51 to be invoked,
Vice President Dick Cheney, who constitutes the real power behind the Executive,
would essentially assume de facto dictatorial powers, circumventing both
the US Congress and the Judiciary, while continuing to use President George
W. Bush as a proxy figurehead."

But isn't Dick Cheney demonstrating his dictatorial power
this very moment? Hasn't he told the National Archives, the House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform, the entire Congress, the American people
to all drop dead and go to hell? Was Kucinich wrong in targeting this
monster for impeachment? The press knows that he is America's dictator;
the Congress knows it; Kucinich knows it; Chossudovsky knows it, and I
know it. Why isn't anything being done to stop this ticking international
nuclear time bomb about ready to attack both America andIran? Can
one madman rule America? Has America finally come to this?